cpp_is_king
Member
They do, but very inefficiently. IIUC Phytoplankton is a more effective source of negative carbon, but their numbers have been declining
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Worlds first negative emissions plant has begun operationturning CO2 into stone
- Thread starter nintendoman58
- Start date
They do, but very inefficiently. IIUC Phytoplankton is a more effective source of negative carbon, but their numbers have been declining
Why not? Not so long ago I read a study[1] on how replacing 2% of cattle feed with a specific algae can reduce their methane output by 99%. We are also not that far away from consumer ready artificially grown meat. I see no reason to believe tech/science won't solve this problem.
[1]http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/seaweed-may-cut-cows-methane-production/
Those can also be improved with technology...
PdotMichael
Banned
It's the most efficient way of getting rid of co2.
It also helps that wood itself is usable in various ways which can replace other more energy heavy materials in construction for example.
No one touches my milk, ice cream, burgers and steak. Got it?!
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
Can't that stone be used for anything other than burying it?
davidwhangchoi
Member
it'll take on a new meaning for "The Projects"
We're gonna build islands. #lexluthorwinsagain
nelsonroyale
Member
I know this is correct form a purely human instrumental perspective, but that is pretty condescending...Plants use it in the process of photosynthesis which is fucking amazing for life in general, and they provide a whole raft of other benefits as the foundation of food chains and habitat. It may be ineffcient for our uses given the carbon catastrophe of our own making, but it generally serves plants who have a completely different function.
I mean, this approach to storing carbon as solids can be complimentary, but reducing consumption emissions and increasing healthy ecosystem biomass is by far the best option. For instance, whales are also big carbon sinks and they live a long time. We should also concentrate on helping their populations recover (i.e., blue whales at something like 1% or less of their pre-human population).
Raonak
Banned
im sure synthetic/printable food will solve that eventually...
Pump real money into this and see it become ever more efficient and cheaper per ton of carbon captured. The amount the world spends on weapons and military hardware could easily achieve this utopian goal. We can do it but it requires the will. Sadly were all short sighted arseholes so it wont happen.
But Climeworks already did that a while ago? Why is it now the first?
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=239337405
Did a thread on it back then.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=239337405
Did a thread on it back then.
the-pi-guy
Member
Blue Submarine No. 6
Member
We'll need it for sea walls to fend off rising sea levels... win/win
It's like the real life version of the Supreme Commander infinite loops of mass <-> energy converters.
Just you wait for Basalt Brutalism taking the architecture world by storm*.
* actually by carbon sequestration
And it's not enough. Unless of course, your plan is to go back to the world as it was in the pre-cambrian period cor a couple hundred million years. (meaning no people, no large animals, and a planet completely covered in plants.)
I would personally like to see something a little more immediate and compatible with human and animal life.
cpp_is_king
Member
Efficiency implies effectiveness per unit, where unit could be anything from 1 tree to amount of land area occupied by an average tree to amount of resources, natural and artificial, to sustain 1 tree to any number of other things.
Point is, efficiency has nothing to do with the cumulative effect. Trees may very well have the largest cumulative effect, but if youre talking bang-for-buck, they are not really all that great. Definitely not the most efficient
Bedameister
Member
You sure it's the first "negative emissions" plant? I'm pretty sure there are already plants turning CO2 and water into hydrocarbons.
Which is imo the even more elegant solution. But this is also neat.
Which is imo the even more elegant solution. But this is also neat.